JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.1987 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the C.G.I.T., Kanpur) in L.C.A. No, 83 of 1986. By the impugned order the C.G.I.T., Kanpur has allowed the claim application of the workman for computation of monetary benefits filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 amounting to Rs. 9559.88p.
3. The workman claimed that he was appointed, as an Assistant by the management of L.I.C. at their Kasgaj Branch vide their letter No. Estt/per/83, dated 14.11.83. Initially for a period of 45 days, i.e., w.e.f. 15.11.1983 to 29.2.1983; that subsequently he was appointed vide letter dated 31.12.1983 for 45 days from 2.1.1984 which was extended for another 40 days w.e.f. 16.2.1984. He also claims that thereafter he was asked by the Branch Manager to continue to work, pending further sanction from the Divisional Office without giving appointment letter. The petitioner alleges that he worked till 11.1.1985 when his services were discontinued in an illegal and unjustified manner and though he had worked as an Assistant from 15.11.1983 to 11.1.1985, he was paid wages for the period 15.11.1983 to 26.3.1984 only. He further claimed wages amounting to Rs. 9559.88/- for the period 27.3.1984 to 11.1.1985 and also for 2 days, i.e., 30.12.1983 and 31.12.1983 and also submitted a chart/statement of the amount alleged to be due to him.
4. The petitioner-Corporation contested the claim application of the workman inter alia that the appointment of respondent No. 2 was temporary and for specified period. It is submitted that it was made very clear in the said appointment letter that the services of the workman could be terminated at any time without giving him any prior notice and that he was again appointed w.e.f. 2.1.1984 as a temporary Assistant for 45 days. This period was further extended for another 40 days on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the appointment letter dated 31.12.1983. The applicant duly accepted this. The petitioner denied that respondent No. 2 was asked by the Branch Manager to continue to work thereafter pending further sanction from the Divisional Office. It was specifically averred that as a matter of fact the services of the workman came to an end from 26.3.1984 and he was duly paid all dues. It was further submitted that one Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, the real elder brother of the workman, made an application to undertake to complete some work of closing for the year 1983-84 on contract clearly stating in his application dated 24.4.1984 that either he would be completing the work or he would get the work competed through some one else. For this purpose a sum of Rs. 1200/- was agreed upon to be paid to Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and that he got the work completed through his younger brother, respondent No. 2 in this case. For the completion of this work no days, timing or period was fixed. Respondent No. 2 used to come either in the morning or in the evening or some times once in a fortnight or once in a week and used to make the required entries into the records of the Corporation. Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal completed the work through his brother, respondent No. 2. As the Corporation did not employ respondent after 26.3.1984, he is not entitled to any wages whatsoever as claimed by him.
5. Apart from denial of claim of respondent No. 2 the claim was also contested on the ground that there was no relationship of master and servant between them. The petitioner-Corporation also challenged that the statement of salary for the period 30.12.1983 to 11.1.1985 annexed with application was imaginary and no amount was due which required determination by the Labour Court.
6. From the record it is evident that respondent No. 2 was appointed in temporary capacity for specified periods initially for 45 days and according to the terms of appointment vide appointment letter dated 14.11.1983, his appointment on temporary basis would not entitle him to either absorption in the service of the Corporation or preference for recruitment to any post. The appointment letter dated 14.11.1983 and relevant service conditions contained in letter-dated 31.12.19 8 3 are reproduced below :
"Ref. : Appointment of Temp. Asstt.
With reference to our application dated 12.11.83 you are informed that you hereby appointed as temp. Asstt. From 15.11.83 to 29.12.83 for 45 days only. During this period salary payable to you would be Rs. 175/-plus dearness allowances applicable under L.I.C. rules. Note that you may be terminated at anytime without giving any further notice etc. Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Branch Manager, 14.11.1983."
7. The second letter is as under :
"Branch Office, Near Nadrai Gate, Kasganj, Distt. Etah.
Sri Audhesh Chandra Agrawal, C/o Suhag Bangle Store, Meena Bazar, Kasganj.
Dear Sir, With reference to your application for the post of Temp. Asstt., you are hereby offered Temporary Appointment' for the post of Temp. Asstt. at the Branch Office, Kasganj on the basis salary of Rs. 175/-, Dearness Allowance @ Rs.......as per Rules H.R.A., C.C.A. and Functional Allowance as per the rules of Corporation per month on purely temporary basis for a period of 45 day w.e.f. the date you join duties at your place of posting.
2. Your appointment is purely temporary and shall terminate on the expiry of the period prescribed herein. The Corporation may, however, terminate your services without assigning any reason whatsoever and without giving you any notice thereof during the said period.
3. During the period of your above mentioned temporary appointment by the Corporation, none of the provisions of the L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations. 1960 shall apply to you and you shall not be entitled to any benefits thereunder either.
4. ....................................;.........................................................................
5. ...............................................................................................................
6. During the period of your temporary service, you shall not be entitled to any leave whatsoever other than the days on which the offices of the Corporation are closed and if you remain absent on any working day, a proportionate amount shall be cut from your total monthly remuneration for the day/s of absence.
7. ..........................................................................................................
8. Your present appointment on temporary basis shall not entitle you to either absorption in the service of the Corporation or any preference for recruitment to any post.
9. ..............................................................................................................
10. ............................................................................................................
11. If the above terms are acceptable to you, you are requested to report for duty to the Establishment Department of the office at the address mentioned above within 7 days of the date of receipt of this letter by you.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Branch Manager."
8. The respondent accepted all the terms and conditions of appointment given in the appointment letter vide letter dated 2.1.1984 as under :
"To, The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Kasganj.
Sir, Re : Joining the duty As per your appointment letter dated 31.12.83 I am joining today at 10 a.m. In this respect I accept all the terms and conditions which is given in the appointment letter and oblige.
With regards, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Avdhesh Chandra Agarwal)."
9.The management pleads that Sri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, the real elder brother of the applicant, made an application on 24.4.1984 for being given some work of the Corporation on contract basis in the year 1983-84. It was stated by him in his application that he would either complete the work himself or get it completed through some one else. The management agreed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 1200/- to him for the said work and got the work completed through the applicant, the real brother of respondent No. 2.
10. In the impugned order the C.G.I.T. has held that there is substantial truth in the case set up by the workman that work had been taken from him on 30th and 31st December, 1983 and also during the period 27.3.1984 to 11.1.1985. There is no document to prove his employment conclusively. The petitioner is a statutory Corporation governed by rules and specific instructions. The Corporation denies relationship of master and servant on payment of wages. The dispute is about employment from 27.3.1984, i.e., after expiry of 39 days from 16.2.1984 and thereafter under alleged verbal order of the Branch Manager in expectation of approval. This controversy cannot be decided without evidence and out-side the scope of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. This controversy falls in the ambit of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court could not have computed the wages under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act unless the question of his employment was adjudicated by competent Court in a reference.
11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.1987 is quashed No order as to costs.